Protection from discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs

[fast]

Edited out

 

[ruby sparks]

I think the key word (as ever) in all of the above is 'reasonable'. I'm not against reasonable accommodations, of any 'special' need or wish. Partly because there may be ways and times when I might benefit if the situation were to change or reverse. People reasonably accommodating other people is a sign of a tolerant society.

 

[ruby sparks]

Suppose I start a group that dances around naked under a full moon covering outsells with cream cheese drinking kegs of evil surged soda? How about Asian forms of ancestor worship?

This, in practical terms, as regards according status (and accommodations) is where it gets blurry.

I hate to say that it (the issue) becomes a numbers game, but I think it does. If you are the only person in your religion, it may not be recognised as valid for the purposes, no matter how sincere and devout your beliefs are (which is supposedly a key criteria for consideration for accommodations).

Also, does a 'religion' have to have supernatural or magic elements (what I call woo) in order to qualify and is that why football fandom (which imo meets several of the criteria for being a religion) doesn't legally qualify?

I think that it is in some ways a numbers game, or perhaps better to say 'an established tradition' game. So in a way, the validity or accuracy of the beliefs is not closely related to the legitimacy of them being recognised as candidates for accommodation.

I hope that makes sense and/or isn't stating the bleedin' obvious. Lol. I'm in a rush here.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Have the law ignore the "religious tradition", giving no special treatment for or against on that basis, and it then doesn't matter how strongly the beliefs are held or how many other people share them. This is really simple.

 

[steve_bank]

I am no fan of religion. Religion tolerates us they do not like or they should under the founder's principles, we tolerate religion as long as it stays out of our lives.

Mutually assured survival.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Nobody should be discriminated for their beliefs, provided that those beliefs do not negatively impact others, but similarly, nobody should be given special treatment due to their beliefs. Whether those beliefs have a basis in religion or anything else shouldn't be a consideration.

If somebody refuses to take certain meetings because he doesn't want to be alone in a room with a woman, that's an issue if he wants to have a job which includes having meetings with people from time to time. That shouldn't change if his reason is because he's a devout member of a Christian sect which doesn't let men be alone in a room with a woman who's not his wife or if it's because it's because he's an incel who thinks that women are a bunch of feminazi bitches and he doesn't want to associate with them one-on-one.

If a school has a no weapons policy, then the policy should be that nobody should be able to bring weapons to the school. There shouldn't be exceptions for "I'm a Sikh and am required to carry this ceremonial knife at all times" or "My devout adherence to the Dirtyharrism faith requires me to carry a .44 Magnum at all times" or "I'm bullied a lot in school, so I want to bring a gun with me".

If an IT job requires team members to be part of a rotating schedule of being available online to provide tech support on the weekends, then not being able to do so on Saturdays should be a disqualification for the job. It shouldn't matter if the reason is "I'm an Orthodox Jew and can't use electrical items on the Sabbath" or "I'm a lazy motherfucker and I don't want to work on Saturdays".

Nobody should stop people from believing whatever they want to believe for whatever reason they want to believe it. Similarly, though, nobody should be legally required to go an inch out of their way to accommodate someone else's beliefs, regardless of whether or not those beliefs have a religious basis.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Nobody should be discriminated for their beliefs, provided that those beliefs do not negatively impact others, but similarly, nobody should be given special treatment due to their beliefs. Whether those beliefs have a basis in religion or anything else shouldn't be a consideration.

If somebody refuses to take certain meetings because he doesn't want to be alone in a room with a woman, that's an issue if he wants to have a job which includes having meetings with people from time to time. That shouldn't change if his reason is because he's a devout member of a Christian sect which doesn't let men be alone in a room with a woman who's not his wife or if it's because it's because he's an incel who thinks that women are a bunch of feminazi bitches and he doesn't want to associate with them one-on-one.

If a school has a no weapons policy, then the policy should be that nobody should be able to bring weapons to the school. There shouldn't be exceptions for "I'm a Sikh and am required to carry this ceremonial knife at all times" or "My devout adherence to the Dirtyharrism faith requires me to carry a .44 Magnum at all times" or "I'm bullied a lot in school, so I want to bring a gun with me".

If an IT job requires team members to be part of a rotating schedule of being available online to provide tech support on the weekends, then not being able to do so on Saturdays should be a disqualification for the job. It shouldn't matter if the reason is "I'm an Orthodox Jew and can't use electrical items on the Sabbath" or "I'm a lazy motherfucker and I don't want to work on Saturdays".

Nobody should stop people from believing whatever they want to believe for whatever reason they want to believe it. Similarly, though, nobody should be legally required to go an inch out of their way to accommodate someone else's beliefs, regardless of whether or not those beliefs have a religious basis.

I disagree (and so does the law), especially with the last part. "Reasonable accommodation" is left intentionally vague because what may be reasonable to one person or business may not be for another.

I didn't have a problem allowing my one muslim employee to take a long lunch one friday/month, or even every friday, if he made up the hours. Why deprive someone of something so simple just because you don't buy into it?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I didn't have a problem allowing my one muslim employee to take a long lunch one friday/month, or even every friday, if he made up the hours. Why deprive someone of something so simple just because you don't buy into it?

The only objection that comes to my mind, is would you allow a non-muslim to do the same if he/she also made up the hours just as well? If you are not singling out the religious person for special treatment you wouldn't give somebody else, then I have no issue with this at all.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I didn't have a problem allowing my one muslim employee to take a long lunch one friday/month, or even every friday, if he made up the hours. Why deprive someone of something so simple just because you don't buy into it?

The only objection that comes to my mind, is would you allow a non-muslim to do the same if he/she also made up the hours just as well? If you are not singling out the religious person for special treatment you wouldn't give somebody else, then I have no issue with this at all.

Yeah, that's sorta the point for me. Even if it were a weekly thing (kid's school activity, doctor appt, etc) it wouldn't matter. It was no secret that I was an atheist (at that job anyway), but I had no problem letting me employees flex their time around. I didn't even ask the reason most of the time.

 

[ronburgundy]

Religion is a set of chosen beliefs and interpersonal associations. Like all beliefs and other willful acts, and even more than most, it strongly reflects the intellectual and moral character of the person. So, unless all beliefs and legal actions should be protected from discrimination and ignored when interacting with people, then religion should not either.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Religion is a set of chosen beliefs and interpersonal associations. Like all beliefs and other willful acts, and even more than most, it strongly reflects the intellectual and moral character of the person. So, unless all beliefs and legal actions should be protected from discrimination and ignored when interacting with people, then religion should not either.

In principle, I agree. However, there's a reason (lots of reasons, actually) the framers of the constitution disagree with you. Most of the reasons have to do with people being stupid and warlike and taking religion way too seriously. We live with the world we have, not the world we want....

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Nobody should be discriminated for their beliefs, provided that those beliefs do not negatively impact others, but similarly, nobody should be given special treatment due to their beliefs. Whether those beliefs have a basis in religion or anything else shouldn't be a consideration.

If somebody refuses to take certain meetings because he doesn't want to be alone in a room with a woman, that's an issue if he wants to have a job which includes having meetings with people from time to time. That shouldn't change if his reason is because he's a devout member of a Christian sect which doesn't let men be alone in a room with a woman who's not his wife or if it's because it's because he's an incel who thinks that women are a bunch of feminazi bitches and he doesn't want to associate with them one-on-one.

If a school has a no weapons policy, then the policy should be that nobody should be able to bring weapons to the school. There shouldn't be exceptions for "I'm a Sikh and am required to carry this ceremonial knife at all times" or "My devout adherence to the Dirtyharrism faith requires me to carry a .44 Magnum at all times" or "I'm bullied a lot in school, so I want to bring a gun with me".

If an IT job requires team members to be part of a rotating schedule of being available online to provide tech support on the weekends, then not being able to do so on Saturdays should be a disqualification for the job. It shouldn't matter if the reason is "I'm an Orthodox Jew and can't use electrical items on the Sabbath" or "I'm a lazy motherfucker and I don't want to work on Saturdays".

Nobody should stop people from believing whatever they want to believe for whatever reason they want to believe it. Similarly, though, nobody should be legally required to go an inch out of their way to accommodate someone else's beliefs, regardless of whether or not those beliefs have a religious basis.

I disagree (and so does the law), especially with the last part. "Reasonable accommodation" is left intentionally vague because what may be reasonable to one person or business may not be for another.

I didn't have a problem allowing my one muslim employee to take a long lunch one friday/month, or even every friday, if he made up the hours. Why deprive someone of something so simple just because you don't buy into it?

My point is that that's fine. If you want to make the rule "You can take some long lunches for personal tasks if you make up the hours later", feel free. It should not be specific to Muslims, however. If one employee wants to take a long lunch on Fridays to go pray and another wants to go and see a matinee on Tuesdays because tickets are cheaper, both can be OK. If they work later to make up the time they took off, you're good with that.

Similarly, it should be fine for someone else to do the opposite. If someone sets up the rule "Business hours and 9-5 Monday to Friday with an hour for lunch", then employees need to accommodate that rule or not take the job. If someone can't accommodate those rules, then they shouldn't work in that job.

 

[ronburgundy]

I didn't have a problem allowing my one muslim employee to take a long lunch one friday/month, or even every friday, if he made up the hours. Why deprive someone of something so simple just because you don't buy into it?

The only objection that comes to my mind, is would you allow a non-muslim to do the same if he/she also made up the hours just as well? If you are not singling out the religious person for special treatment you wouldn't give somebody else, then I have no issue with this at all.

Yeah, that's sorta the point for me. Even if it were a weekly thing (kid's school activity, doctor appt, etc) it wouldn't matter. It was no secret that I was an atheist (at that job anyway), but I had no problem letting me employees flex their time around. I didn't even ask the reason most of the time.

That's fine, but you should allow all employees the flex their time around any personal reason. If you accommodate the Muslim but you don't give equal accommodation to a guy who wants a longer lunch so he can go take a nap, then you are discriminating based on religion. IOW, you shouldn't even ask for the reason, either you are willing to allow such flexibility or not. If you think that reasons should matter, then it is just as justified and should be just as legal to disfavor religious reasons as it is to favor them.

The fact that "the law", which currently is largely devoid of reason and principled ethics, forces you to give special accommodation (aka preferential discrimination) favor of religious reasons is not an argument in favor of doing so. That's question begging. The main issue under discussion is whether the law should do that and whether it is ethical to do so, and there is no sound argument in favor of doing so that is not based in apriori assumptions that privilege some religious views over others and privileges religious over non-religious motivations. In fact, since such privileging of religion is unconstitutional, the current law is unconstitutional, whether or not
the biased pro-religion justices in the Court have the intellectual integrity to admit it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Religion is a set of chosen beliefs and interpersonal associations. Like all beliefs and other willful acts, and even more than most, it strongly reflects the intellectual and moral character of the person. So, unless all beliefs and legal actions should be protected from discrimination and ignored when interacting with people, then religion should not either.

In principle, I agree. However, there's a reason (lots of reasons, actually) the framers of the constitution disagree with you. Most of the reasons have to do with people being stupid and warlike and taking religion way too seriously. We live with the world we have, not the world we want....

No, the framers disagree with you. Absolutely nothing in the constitution says or implies that people or businesses cannot discriminate based upon a person's religious views. In fact, the 1st Amendment actually prohibits any legal requirements of government to treat religions differently, whether in favor of them or against them, since both are inherently discriminating on the basis of religion. And the general principles of personal liberty and free association are at odds with any law that would prevent individuals from acting differently towards people based upon their chosen beliefs and actions. The Constitution does not say or imply anything different about how a person or business must react to a member of the KKK than to a member of the RCC.

Yes, the framers thought that religion was generally stupid, warlike, and too influential in society. That is why the created a wall of separation to prevent religion from having any special status or influence on laws.

 

[TSwizzle]

So the basic question is, should religious beliefs be an allowable category for having legal protections from discrimination?

One other potentially interesting aspect may be to ask whether a lack of religious beliefs should or should not be a protected category.

Sort of yes. Things like I won't rent my property to someone because he's a catholic is not allowed and I think that's proper. But it's not really about people's religious beliefs, it's their religious practices that don't deserve protection. Why should an employer, school or whatever be forced to provide prayer rooms to allow some people to mutter mumbo jumbo etc. That's the sort of nonsense I object to.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So the basic question is, should religious beliefs be an allowable category for having legal protections from discrimination?

One other potentially interesting aspect may be to ask whether a lack of religious beliefs should or should not be a protected category.

Sort of yes. Things like I won't rent my property to someone because he's a catholic is not allowed and I think that's proper. But it's not really about people's religious beliefs, it's their religious practices that don't deserve protection. Why should an employer, school or whatever be forced to provide prayer rooms to allow some people to mutter mumbo jumbo etc. That's the sort of nonsense I object to.

That's a good point. Religions usually come with practices, and some of those practices may not be what an employer/landlord wants. Do you want your apartment building to be full of chanting, or the burning of particular substances, etc.

 

[SimpleDon]

So the basic question is, should religious beliefs be an allowable category for having legal protections from discrimination?

Very vague OP I know. I have to rush off here. I will try to add more later.

I suppose the fist thought that strikes me is that we should distinguish between the (internal/private) religious beliefs themselves and the ways in which they are manifest socially, the behaviours.

And in essence, I am probably really only referring to the latter. Discrimination against someone for merely thinking something is arguably more clear cut.

There may also be issues about whether or not protected categories are a matter of choice or not, whether a list of such categories can be divided that way and whether religious beliefs are or are not a choice.

One other potentially interesting aspect may be to ask whether a lack of religious beliefs should or should not be a protected category.

I don't believe that religion should enter into the public sphere at all. That not only shouldn't it be an excuse for discrimination, it shouldn't be a consideration in the formation of public policies and laws. That as soon as someone says that their holy book says that we should not do something or that we should do something else that whatever follows is disregarded and ignored.

Many of the problems that we have today are because of fundamentalism. The belief that some old book contains all that we need to know, whether it is people convinced that the bible or koran can tell us how to live and to organize our society in the twenty first century or judges parsing the Federalist Papers to determine the same things or people who believe that Adam Smith and David Ricardo told us all that we need to know about economics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree (and so does the law), especially with the last part. "Reasonable accommodation" is left intentionally vague because what may be reasonable to one person or business may not be for another.

I didn't have a problem allowing my one muslim employee to take a long lunch one friday/month, or even every friday, if he made up the hours. Why deprive someone of something so simple just because you don't buy into it?

Some jobs that would be fine. Some jobs it wouldn't.

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't be allowed to provide such accommodation. The issue is whether you should be forced to. Somebody that works basically independently of other workers generally isn't a problem to shuffle the schedule. Somebody that works as part of a group, though--you can't just make up the hours unless the whole group operates on the adjusted schedule. Likewise, a business might simply not have extra hours to make up. You're open 8-12, 1-5 and are in a customer-facing position, no variation is possible.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Religion is a set of chosen beliefs and interpersonal associations. Like all beliefs and other willful acts, and even more than most, it strongly reflects the intellectual and moral character of the person. So, unless all beliefs and legal actions should be protected from discrimination and ignored when interacting with people, then religion should not either.

In principle, I agree. However, there's a reason (lots of reasons, actually) the framers of the constitution disagree with you. Most of the reasons have to do with people being stupid and warlike and taking religion way too seriously. We live with the world we have, not the world we want....

No, the framers disagree with you. Absolutely nothing in the constitution says or implies that people or businesses cannot discriminate based upon a person's religious views. In fact, the 1st Amendment actually prohibits any legal requirements of government to treat religions differently, whether in favor of them or against them, since both are inherently discriminating on the basis of religion. And the general principles of personal liberty and free association are at odds with any law that would prevent individuals from acting differently towards people based upon their chosen beliefs and actions. The Constitution does not say or imply anything different about how a person or business must react to a member of the KKK than to a member of the RCC.

Yes, the framers thought that religion was generally stupid, warlike, and too influential in society. That is why the created a wall of separation to prevent religion from having any special status or influence on laws.

The part the founders agree with is that they specifically included religion in the 1st amendment. You could argue what extent that protection should be extended (and I would as well), but they did specifically include it.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree (and so does the law), especially with the last part. "Reasonable accommodation" is left intentionally vague because what may be reasonable to one person or business may not be for another.

I didn't have a problem allowing my one muslim employee to take a long lunch one friday/month, or even every friday, if he made up the hours. Why deprive someone of something so simple just because you don't buy into it?

Some jobs that would be fine. Some jobs it wouldn't.

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't be allowed to provide such accommodation. The issue is whether you should be forced to. Somebody that works basically independently of other workers generally isn't a problem to shuffle the schedule. Somebody that works as part of a group, though--you can't just make up the hours unless the whole group operates on the adjusted schedule. Likewise, a business might simply not have extra hours to make up. You're open 8-12, 1-5 and are in a customer-facing position, no variation is possible.

The prevailing legal principle is 'reasonable' accommodation, so technically, no work is 'forced' if it's really a pain in the ass.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes. Although there is no 'reasonable accommodation' (in law) specifically for football fandom. So, whilst we could say ''well it (accommodation for religion) is in the law (or constitution or whatever)" but that may have been written a long time ago or at least quite a while ago and/or under different circumstances (such as religious beliefs being widely or culturally accepted to be the norm and therefore somehow deserving). I guess what I'm asking is should it be retained? And if so, on what grounds?

The only grounds that come to my mind (and they're not very good ones in some ways) is that religions are established traditions (well the established ones are) that many people partake in (well that applies to the popular ones at least).

Because I think the special accommodations, such as they are, being reasonable etc etc, could be taken out and the preferences of the religious treated similarly to for example (genuine, believing) football fans. Which of course could still operate under 'reasonable accommodation' but would be different from the law specifically having accommodations for theistic religion. 'Boss, can I go to the match' and 'boss, can I go to the church' would be on a par.

The other grounds I can think of are a bit more persuasive to me, that it is wise not to deny allowances to others if you would like to enjoy them in reverse were things ever to go differently (adversely from your point of view) in your society.

Also just tolerance. Ok theists are wooheads, but hey. Cut them some slack. That probably isn't a very strong example of 'good grounds' either, I suppose.

Also worth noting that some of the issues arise out of practices which are arguably as much cultural as they are theistic.

Personally, I think the current system(s), by which I mean the laws and the way they are applied in many/most 'western' democracies, which include protections/accommodations for the religious alongside other potential discriminations, are by and large working quite well. I'm not sure radical change is necessary. Sure, there may be occasional cases where we might object, but no system is perfect. My guess is that if you took out the sorts of provisions which currently pertain, that mightn't work perfectly either, especially if religion is (as it is) still culturally widespread, even if as atheists, some sort of appealing 'treating everyone the same' might be our ideal notion.

What would be next up for debate (or the chop)? Maternity (or paternity) leave? People choose to have babies. And don't even start me on the rationality or otherwise of that.